Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 6:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

FB/Band: pleeezzz--making that argument on a place like this is just plain silly.

All you have to ask yourself if this is truly a FS issue (I am as behind THAT as ANYONE) can be is to say "what would the Supreme Court 'decide' was the 'intention' behind these 'displays' or 'speech' as you suggest?"

Because it was solely to ANNOY, not any other purpose, it is in no way an issue of FS protection.

Just like "loud" speech on a street is not protected, in a theatre, etc...

Think about; really. It's demeaning to confuse the two.

Not to you guys cause I know you mean well...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Dec 17, 2010 6:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

We will have to agree to disagree Tell.
It most certainly is a free speech issue. The fact that it's only purpose was to ANNOY is not grounds enough to squelch it. It didn't endanger anyone, it only annoyed them.

The fact that it annoyd you (or anyone) was on you.
If folks on here would just ignore it, which apparently almost no one was able to do, nobody would have been annoyed by it. Hard to be annoyed by something that you won't allow yourself to be annoyed by.

Sadly in this country, we have come to a point (Scotus included) that we look to have speech squelched simply based upon the fact that we disagree with it's content.
Or, if not doing so ourselves, turning a blind eye while others do it.

Most of what I_S posted wasn't worth the time it took to read. It was still within his rights to post it in a public forum. Just as it was within the rights of everyone else to ignore it or not. What saddens me most is that folks here chose not to ignore it but instead tried to have him banned and his posts removed, based simply on the fact that they did not like what he posted. and based on the posts I have seen so far, most others here are applauding, or at least accepting of that. That is scary stuff there.....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 9:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

"We will have to agree to disagree Tell.
It most certainly is a free speech issue. The fact that it's only purpose was to ANNOY is not grounds enough to squelch it. It didn't endanger anyone, it only annoyed them."


That's completely incorrect. Yelling nigger, retard, Jewish scum etc. is an incitement to violence and you bet people can get hurt.

"Sadly in this country, we have come to a point (Scotus included) that we look to have speech squelched simply based upon the fact that we disagree with it's content."

No. It isn't about disagreeing. It was the racial and religious slurs that made it necessary to remove him. I wouldn't agree with removing him if he were just being an asshole. If being an asshole weren't allowed, there wouldn't be much of a forum, some days.

"It was still within his rights to post it in a public forum."

No, it wasn't. If he posted "The Grateful Dead suck" that would be one thing; to use a handle "Islam sucks" is to deliberately inflame religious bigotry. If you haven't noticed people getting hurt as a result of religious bigotry, I suggest you read history. (Or the Bible.)


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: duckpond74 Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Hey FB, " folks here chose not to ignore it but instead tried to have him banned and his posts removed, based simply on the fact that they did not like what he posted. and based on the posts I have seen so far, most others here are applauding, or at least accepting of that. That is scary stuff there....."

Free Speech vs Hate Mongering has always been a thorny conundrum with me.

It's like taking a relaxing stroll through your favourite park and having someone handing out pamphlets or preaching from a soapbox, it can diminish or even destroy that feeling of reverie at the time, but you can move on and it's likely they won't be there next time - and you can appreciate the fact that one can have that freedom to speak one's mind. Unlike the Hate Mongerer that spray paints their message across park benches, sidewalks and rock formations - disturbing AND it is hard to ignore. You feel your public 'comfort space' has been violated and you want it removed. You cannot have that same 'walk through the park' with its ensuing 'good feelings' because you are constantly being faced with disturbing, angry messages. It's depressing to have to avert your eyes and attention away from what you hold dear and have grown to accept as a sanctuary of sorts. You want your walk through the park to return to being rejuvenating and inspiring with sights and signs of life and fresh new growth - not destruction and defacement. To me, that is one difference between free speech and hate mongering in a public space.

This place was (and often, still is) this lucky find - a sanctuary from the daily news and events . . . my walk in the park, if you will.

The Troll in question here seems to choose the moniker, method and message of the destructive one's MO alluded to above. Good people here have tried discourse, sincere efforts to engage our 'friend' in civil discussions, only to be rebuked in the most offensive and juvenile tirades that show no attempts at discourse. To me, this is hardly a free speech situation . . . and, of course, you are free to disagree with any thing or all that i've said.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 8:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Well, DP, I couldn't have said it better myself--and as is obvious, I love kicking this crap around.

Have a great Holiday season, whatever form it takes, and here's to hoping few things come along that disrupt that experience for you, ya know? Just like you, and so many others, it came down to how much what was happening so negatively impacted what I have come to view as my own little version of a "walk in the park", in part cause I can't do as much of that as I used to...this is a special place to me, and it's not that I want it all my own way, but the terms are the terms...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: duckpond74 Date: Dec 17, 2010 8:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Hey Dr. Tell, thanks and wishing the same for you and yours this season. May your health issues become more favourable to your needs so that life may proceed without those painful 'distractions' - i feel your pain brother.

It has been 'visiting' with folks like you, vapors, LiA, Althea Rose, BD, SDH, Rob, Cliff, and others that has made this little 'walk in the park' an enjoyable retreat. I appreciate the many levels of enthusiasm and endearments that this forum brings to such a long-time fascination of mine. Visiting the archives has been a treat to have such a wealth at one's fingertips - my ears have been pleased and my soul has been rejuvenated more than a few times. As in currently thoroughly enjoying the latest CM remaster of Champaign-Urbana 2-22-73, a complete and clean version of a much cherished old reel and frequently played in the car cassette. It's like visiting an old friend you haven't seen for years and all of the memories and good feelings return, yet with this new clarity, there is an added depth and new appreciation. And with this forum, the story often unfolds further. The diversity of tastes, experiences and collected knowledge with regards to years, eras, tours, keyboard players, etc. - all adds to the fascination. The friendly banter alongside of the knowledgeable and thoroughly researched monographs as well as Cliff's spot-on videos, these are the new, and sometimes exciting things that one notices on this, now regular, walk through the park.

Looking back, I find it interesting that my first review and post were about this same nefarious scribbler, what a waste of time, emotion and energy, when I could have been discussing something along the lines of the aesthetics of Keith on piano vs those of Brent or Vince with the fervent fans of the 80's and 90's.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I think the issue isn't just that he trolled, spewed and hate speeched his way all across this odd little public/private square here. It's that he'd taken to bumping his trollish, spewy and hate speechified threads right back up to the top. Meaning that he could, with the unwittingly helpful participation of folks who replied to him (hence making his threads insanely long), effectively dominate the square.

Seems to me the moderators ignored him as long as he was just babbling and spewing. But there's a difference between a nut who babbles hatefully in a corner and one who builds his own little Wall of Sound all over the square just to broadcast hate speech so loudly that others can barely be heard. That's not speech; that's domination.

Good for the moderators for stepping in, and good for them for refraining this long. I'm sure he'll be back. But when he does, really, if we can all just refrain from helping him put up the speakers, than he'll just babble pathetically alone in his own little corner.

Or heck, put the snarky comments in their own thread, rather than replying to his. Then at least he can't bump it up. The bottom line: Don't help trolls build their Wall of Sound!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 8:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

"...then he'll just babble pathetically alone in his own little corner."

Couldn't resist taking a jab at me, eh? Oh, I see--nevermind.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Sorry to pester, FB, but did want to ask, as I enjoy this sort of exchange, what do you make of the "terms"? At some level, I think the mods decided, "well, Tell's right--we do have terms, and it's clear he's in violation" (note how I pat myself on the back, eh? and I do believe everyone agrees, right, that his intent was just to annoy...even if to 'open our eyes', as I do believe he believes some of this crap, it was presented in a way that violated the terms, right?).

And, I stand here, completely ready and willing to be banned as well.

Seriously--if CLIFF, LiA, or Dan Healy were to say, with evidence (there's plenty) that "WT only posts about drivel that annoys one and all, and often ignores or derails posts on the DEAD, and this is a DEAD site afterall, so he should be banned due to his annoying behavior" I'd go for it in a heartbeat.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I honestly couldn't tell you what the terms of this site are. Perhaps (probably), I am mistaken and there was some kind of line he did cross. Obviously many here feel so. I don't feel so mainly because once I saw a few of his posts and saw what he was about, I either did not read his posts or if I did took them to be the raqmblings of a lunatic that they were.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: banditos33 Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

"WT only posts about drivel that annoys one and all, and often ignores or derails posts on the DEAD, and this is a DEAD site afterall, so he should be banned due to his annoying behavior" There would not be enough left to have a forum.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 8:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Ah, kind words for the Holiday Season indeed, BD33...thx for that, and in the end, all I know is the sun is shining this fine morning (on the back porch resting the knee/back), birds are winging, and maybe, just maybe, it's an airy day whatever that means...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Actually FB, I do see your pt; yeah, it's a pity it come to this, the folks unable to ignore, BUT, really, when a guy is yelling on the street, outside my door, we CAN (and should) be able to remove him, right? Isn't that only cause he's annoying?

I haven't thought enough about all the fine points, but here what I am saying is that I suppose you're right that it's the "content" that's annoying, and I am talking "sound, etc" in my counter examples, but at some pt, there's a line to be drawn.

I guess to me, it is also related to hate speech--do you think anything goes, including threats? I guess I don't...

But, this is one area I am superficially versed; love to hear more--er read.

And, don't you agree a tiny bit, as you reply, that it'd be a pain if a post from you know who derailed us?

Thx.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

That is it - it's hate speech, it's not "annoying" speech. Hate speech is implicitly a threat. No one has a right to stand around shouting threats, it's that simple, you're going to be removed if you keep that up, and rightly so. Free speech is an important principle but it isn't the *only* important principle in civilization and not starting wars and riots and pogroms is another one.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Dec 17, 2010 6:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Such comments are less threatening due to anonymity in this on-line forum.

Can I be threatened if the troll does not know my identity? Yes, to some extent. That veil reduces the fear-factor in even the most blatant threats compared to a letter addressed to me, or certainly a face-to-face confrontation.

I can say, "WT, Ibreaka-ufaze!" and while that *might* be a scary thought.....I don't even know your real name. Thus, I assume you're not running about turning off lights and squinting through the peephole in fear I'll come strolling up your walk.

Personally, I never felt threatened by the trolls 'round here. Do any of you??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 18, 2010 4:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Of course the anonymity and the physical distance make it *less* threatening, that doesn't mean it's ok or that the threats weren't real.

"Personally, I never felt threatened by the trolls 'round here. Do any of you?? "

I'll go way out on a limb and assume you are white and not Jewish, Muslim, or retarded. No, I personally do not feel the person was a physical threat to me, but I'm aware I might read the whole thread entirely differently if I were one of the people whose entire race he thinks are scum. White privilege allows me a comfort zone - no, I don't think this person is coming after me even if he lived down the street. White people take for granted that we aren't targeted and aren't threatened in these situations.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Dec 18, 2010 12:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

My mother's parents were Jewish. My wife and her entire family are Mexican. It doesn't change the fact that the words of an on-line raving, angry, racist and hateful troll don't feel like a threat. They feel like an outburst by an ignorant and fearful individual.

So, to answer your query, I am one(a target of his hate).

White Privilege? I don't get it. As a California business owner, tax payer and health care victim I feel as if I have a target on my back. I started high school in 8th grade at the age of 11 in Hayward, CA where I was tormented because I was one of the "white kids"......not a privilege. More like baptism by fire. Eventually I became good friends with many of the guys who conspired to kick my little white ass. I think these experiences have dissolved the White Guilt from which many White Americans suffer.

Two America's??

http://www.hulu.com/watch/10356/saturday-night-live-white-like-me

I apologize for this rant, but your assumptions kind of pissed me off.




Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2010 1:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I would turn it around a bit though by saying it's basically bad for business (society in general) to tolerate (yes, tolerate) hate speech, esp when it's along the lines of something that's actually come to pass ("lets lynch the N words!" or "lets fry the Jews!" etc) because when it's not a joke, it's unfortunately the case that there are folks out there that literally go along with these viewpts that, frankly, need to be rounded up and put in a concentration camp...oh....crap.

Whoops. Not sure how I got from A to B, but it always happens when thinking about this slippery slope biz.

Seriously, though, I think you both have valid pts, but per se, I don't take the "threat" aspect as seriously as the general principle of "lets avoid inciting idiots to continue to think along these lines" or something like that...which I admit, is pretty vague.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 19, 2010 6:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

"I don't take the 'threat' aspect as seriously as the general principle of 'lets avoid inciting idiots to continue to think along these lines'"

Right, but the reason we don't want thinking along these lines to spread is the same reason I'm talking about. Eventually people get hurt. The point was never that we think this particular individual (I_S) is coming to our houses to attack us personally. Obviously that is unlikely - but only because he doesn't (hopefully) know who any of us are or where we live. The same talk in a bar, a party, in an office, etc., and fists would fly very quickly, and I would certainly be scared of this person.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2010 7:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Ya know, some are gonna say "holy crap, how does he do this?" (and "why?"), but this is related to why I react so strongly in discussions about muddle-headed thinking on science.

Seriously.

If we take the fine principle of "let everyone believe what they want" when's it's DEAD wrong, we run the risk of having a public that eventually "hurts" (yes, I believe this) people by passing absurd laws about teaching fundamentalist whacko drivel instead of the "truth" (as we know it, and WE know it), and end up with an uninformed society for which we all suffer accordingly.

People are entitled to believe and say what they want to say, BUT they are also "responsible" and often don't understand the significance of wrong-headed beliefs, esp when it comes to something along the lines of "the unexamined life ain't worth living" nor is the muddle-headed one.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 19, 2010 9:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Right. I think that's the same thing I'm saying. Free speech goes just so far. There are some things it is actually NOT OKAY to say. Nobody can stop you thinking them but it actually isn't okay to say them because they do have consequences. Go around saying that "niggers are scum" or "Muslims are scum," and and real live people are definitely going to get hurt. It's just not okay.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mickmac Date: Dec 19, 2010 9:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

As I was expounded to my dear departed father back in the 60's about my rights he looked me dead in the eye and said What he needed was some free speech worth listening to. Needless to say I didn't say any more.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Dec 19, 2010 9:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Then what would we do with the rest of the 90% that is chaff ? Including our own ? ;-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Dec 19, 2010 10:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Ninety percent of everything is crap.
Theodore Sturgeon

It's picking out the ten percent that's the real test.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2010 11:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Never thought of the fact that with a namesake for a bottom feeding fish (not the fine "bottom dwelling butt munch" that Dire and I so desire for our alga filled tanks) that is exquisitely adapted to pick the right 1% off the bottom, after it filters down through layer upon layer of water levels, this is an even better quote, ya know!?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 19, 2010 9:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

LOL

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Dec 18, 2010 3:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

The real test of threat vs. trolling is the law. Did LMA report the activity of I_S to the FBI?

If these were true threats which might incite violence, he should be reported. Period.

I don't believe(Admittedly, I have no idea of the legal precedence here.)any law enforcement agency or court would find that type of speech in this type of forum a crime.

If the words were simply in bad taste(which we all agree they were), but did not rise to the level of breaking the law, then his actions were nothing more than highly offensive.

Either way, the proprietors of this site have the right to deny access if they so choose. I am happy with the choice made by LMA. I would have done the same if this was my website.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 18, 2010 6:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Yup; agreed, and I won't even mention recent developments cause I'd rather say "here's to Bynum remaining healthy!"

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Dec 18, 2010 6:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Yeah? Well, in my book "Lakers Fan" is just about the most derogatory phrase in the English language. Take that!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2010 5:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I knew that...how about, here's to 75, Barry, Johnson, Johnson, Ray, Mullins (original), Beard, Wilkes and...and...? Dunno...

Do you recall that sweep of the Bullets?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2010 5:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I knew that...how about, here's to 75, Barry, Johnson, Johnson, Ray, Mullins (original), Beard, Wilkes and...and...? Dunno...

Do you recall that sweep of the Bullets?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 19, 2010 6:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Okay, I apologize that my assumptions were wrong. And if you don't feel threatened that's fine. I think the anonymity and physical factor is the reason for that, though. The same statements as I_S made here made live in public, rather than in cyberspace could and likely eventually would start real trouble - physically rather than just words.

I'm no expert but I believe the hate crime and hate speech laws are indeed based on the notion that certain types of racial and ethnic and religious insults are particularly unacceptable, and fall outside "free speech," for exactly the reason I'm talking about. They are potentially an incitement to violence. I'm sorry if you think this is far-fetched but it's simply not, it's every day reality.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Dec 20, 2010 1:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Hey RLO - No hard feelings. We can disagree and that's OK.

One point on which I think we agree....too much time has been spent debating the rights of internet trolls.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 20, 2010 5:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Indeed :) happy xmas to you!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: banditos33 Date: Dec 17, 2010 9:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

No shit~! Great way to sum it up. Maybe now, the ever so fragile will not have bite their blanket tonight for sleep.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

See? Here we go again! Now I want to give you and Rose a big hug...sorry, but there you have it. And fear not--I feel like hugging Rob today too.

And isn't the Forum fun today?

I think so, and ain't nobody taking that away from me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

aw, warm fuzzies.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Dec 17, 2010 6:04pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Just no pictures of dancing bears. Please.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 8:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

He's better:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Dec 18, 2010 11:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Yes it is. I'm a veg.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: banditos33 Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

No argument is inteneded. For that to happen I would have to give a shit about his ramblings. Although I dont post often doesnt mean that I dont see his post's,I just dont let it get under my skin or whine for him to be stopped. It is really simple, if I want to read something informative I check out Light in ashes post. If I want jibberish I check out Islams. My only question is What do yall expect when you open one of his? They are all pretty much the same. Dont freakin read it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Skobud Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Hey WT - Ive stayed out of all of this but I do have experience with it. My experience with the whole freedom of speech or moderate yourselves type of policy over at LSP for the two years I was there was a ridiculous one. I think at some point you have to moderate because the nature of the beast is, simply put, out of control. Kochman, yea I said it, Kochman would completely come unglued all the time over at LSP and hide behind the ridiculous vail of freedom of speech. He would go on tirades for days insulting everyone that disagreed with him in a fashion similar to IS. It even got to the point where he started physically threatening his own members(which led to the defection of many members and the state of that place now).

My point is, in my opinion, there has to SOME type of control when things go too far.

Im not an advocate of play nice, but, there is a big difference between back and forth and whatever the hell IS was doing.

It reminds me of that old definition of Pornography - "You know it when you see it"

I agree with Freedom of Speech, however there is a reason civilized society has rules and the means to enforce them. I think this analogy I am making does apply here. I think a little - even just the smallest bit of control is a good thing.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Right, SB--I do see what FB and BD33 are on about, but think there are lines we can demarcate that separate this from the traditional notion of FS, but I am not well prepared on the current applications, re: law, in this New Age domain, ya know?

But, I like the 'spirit' of how you expressed it, cause it was better than my attempt.

To me it seems you do have to argue "intent" in some FS examples.

EG, yell "fire!" in a theatre to annoy, disrupt, cause a riot, and you're WRONG. Yell it cause you thought there was a fire, though there wasn't, and everyone says "let him go", and so on and so forth.

But, FB and BD33 seem to know more, as do you, so I'd love to read more...and I love reading it from you guys without a bunch of crap to ignore, ya know?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: banditos33 Date: Dec 17, 2010 7:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Actually, I could write what i know of Freedom of Speech on a matchbook. Or any Constitutional law for that matter. But I do know that his posts are only words.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Dec 17, 2010 12:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

wow skobud...news to me, I thought u2 were tight! hmmm....cliff may be right on who I_S is.

think I'll go there and poke around

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 9:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I found the "annoy" clause a bit beside the point. I don't think we have any constitutional right not to be annoyed by someone. Racial hate speech is a different story, it's an incitement to violence, and that's rarely protected as free speech. A person simply doesn't have a right to go into fora either physically or in cyberspace and shout things that they know damn well could end up with people getting hurt. Free speech doesn't cover it. What he was doing was exactly the same as (falsely) yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Hate speech is only an incitement to violence if the offended person decides to react violently. Or they could just choose to ignore it. The decision is entirely within their control on how they react to what is said.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

What? No, that's not what incitement to violence means. It doesn't depend on the actions of the people hearing it. Of course people hearing it can and should decide how to respond, but that's not the determinant of whether it's hate speech. Hate speech has a legal definition (differs in different places, though).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I guess I was trying to keep it simple; the terms biz allows them (mods) to act, and we are done with it.

However, thinking more about your line, don't you think the slippery slope biz becomes very difficult to suss out if you take your line, per se? Meaning, we might all agree that certain hate speech MAY cause this or that (your notion of harm).

But why couldn't us agnostics/atheistical sorts say "recent religious postings caused so and so to commit suicide"? Do you follow? Once you open it up that far, it seems drawing the line becomes excessively difficult?

Or am I in left field now?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

No, you're right, it's pretty touchy. I just didn't like the notion that something *wrong* had been done by removing this person. I don't think something wrong was done, I think there was a principle at stake, not just the IA's technical "right" to remove whomever they want (which they can do, of course; bd is right, I think, that there's certainly no law stopping them).

But I agree it can be a slippery slope. In general I like the principle that best the answer to speech one disagrees with is "more speech." In other words, try to educate people rather than punishing them or silencing them. I don't always know where the line should be drawn - but sometimes I do.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:06am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

As much as I want to, I can't agree. The concept of free speech is an absolute - it can't be messed with, no matter how distasteful. Otherwise you're on a sliding scale as to what's ok and not. And that usually depends on the folks with power and money. Yelling 'fire' is forbidden because society decided that endangering people with your words is just not ok. But, as much as I dislike it, Mr. Sucks isn't any different than watching white supremecists or the KKK march around spitting out their crap. About what's private or not around here, I'll leave to the lawyers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

I think your concerns are legitimate - very good ones in fact - but free speech really hasn't been considered an absolute in any society. There are always restrictions, it's just a question of where you draw the line. I agree it's usually better to allow mostly everything rather than look for things to restrict. I do agree with restricting hate speech. It's good that there are challenges to exactly what makes something hate speech.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 17, 2010 10:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Despite what Sarah Palin and those of her ilk may think,
the First Amendment only protects against government infringement of free speech. No state actor, no real issue vis-a-vis First Amendment. Flame away.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Oh, absolutely - in other contexts, it's just about a principle - an ethical, not a legal question. There's no question the internet archive has every right, legally, to throw the guy off.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Dec 17, 2010 12:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

2nd amendment hijack..and I think the same way on 2nd amendment rights..
Not to bear weapons JUST for sport hunting, target shooting & self defense, but ALSO for self offense, to own weapons deadly enough to fight off any enemy, foreign or domestic. And the following Declaration of Independence defines that >>

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — *That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

The above may take BIG firepower, too bad the common people in WW2 Russia & Germany were FIRST disarmed then enslaved. A BAD "Big Brother" will disarm for "common sense" reasons first...gangs, gun accidents, to stop crime - now thats a laugher!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 17, 2010 11:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: He's gone...

Good pt; as RLO notes, we "normal folk" have usurped it as a working hypothesis, and thus are always on slippery slope as DH and RLO also discuss.

Given what Toots noted, though, in principle LMA has gubermint "status", so legally, would this be a pt from which to argue the counter case (ie, no banning, blah, blah, blah)?

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)